new idea on prices. why do we bother?

[muppet77]

i agree mate, but if you did know EVERY variable (which is nigh on impossible) you would know the correct prices.

you have to try and get as close as you can to the correct prices in order to see if it is worth a bet or not.

if not, then your blind selection (by that i mean not paying attention to the prices) will be in loss, unless they are value picks (whether you are aware of it or not)

[PAULM03]

.... I agree with you Paul, it's exactly down to how one defines 'value'.

I think the definition of value is pretty much constant. Just the way of working it out that differs. Poker is a prime example. Some people do everything short of taking a calculator and sliderule to the table, others maybe rely simply on experience and instinct, but the fact is if they're both winning players then they're both making the value calls.

To get back on topic a little, I agree with the basic premise. In fact I thought that this was how the bookies actually priced games up. Fair enough they might have full-time teams of odds compilers, but if they were taking into account massive numbers of variables then IMO you'd see a massive variety of odds, and generally you don't.

[cavelloman]

I think I'm reasonalbe at pricing up matches. And it is uncanny how many of my odds assessment are close to the odds available. I just use a spreadsheet and some simple statistical techniques. Like I have said before because people can't find value and win at football or racing they look to ridicule the concept. The fault lies with them, They are either lazy(I usually spend 3 hours studying race form before deciding on my bets) or lack knowledge.

If value does not exist how is it that I have made a profit 4 out of the 5 months this year. I must be good at guessing

This weekend I put up a selections @11/8 which started at 4/5 and a 11/4 shot which started @6/4. Just get real and start doing some work and stop wasting time on discussing the bleeding obvious.

Famous vlalue men.

Phil Bull, McManus, Alec Bird, John Cough, Slapdash etc etc.

[PAULM03]

Originally Posted by cavelloman

I think I'm reasonalbe at pricing up matches. And it is uncanny how many of my odds assessment are close to the odds available. I just use a spreadsheet and some simple statistical techniques. Like I have said before because people can't find value and win at football or racing they look to ridicule the concept. The fault lies with them, They are either lazy(I usually spend 3 hours studying race form before deciding on my bets) or lack knowledge.

If value does not exist how is it that I have made a profit 4 out of the 5 months this year. I must be good at guessing

This weekend I put up a selections @11/8 which started at 4/5 and a 11/4 shot which started @6/4. Just get real and start doing some work and stop wasting time on discussing the bleeding obvious.

Famous vlalue men.

Phil Bull, McManus, Alec Bird, John Cough, Slapdash etc etc.

No need to beat around the bush here, say what you really think.

[Paul Ross]

I've got to say I agree with Cavelloman to a point.

In my opinion there are some punters who think waaaaaaaaaay too deep about value and getting the right odds etc....

Can I give you Slapdash for a truly prime example.

He studies numbers and how they move and he has been Sports-Punter.com Champion Tipster 2005 and 2006. He knows fcuk all about the horse he's backing, whether it's value or not, or whether it's on crutches.

There's so much obvious information in front of you that helps you more than you can believe, but because it's in front of you, most punters ignore it.

I'm talking about market moves where the odds comparison sites have the information all ready for you, but how many people actually even look at it?

In summary, betting can be difficult and complicated if you make it complicated.

[Paul Ross]

As for "correct prices", there isn't such a thing. It's one man's opinion (an odds compiler) against another man's opinion (punter).

[PAULM03]

Originally Posted by Paul Ross

As for "correct prices", there isn't such a thing. It's one man's opinion (an odds compiler) against another man's opinion (punter).

Would you say that there is such a thing as an incorrect price?

[Paul Ross]

Originally Posted by PAULM03

Would you say that there is such a thing as an incorrect price?

The only way it can be incorrect is if it is a genuine error, ie meant to be 4.00 and it says 40.00.

Other than that, it is again, only an opinion whether it is incorrect.

[PAULM03]

Originally Posted by Paul Ross

The only way it can be incorrect is if it is a genuine error, ie meant to be 4.00 and it says 40.00.

Other than that, it is again, only an opinion whether it is incorrect.

So were I to offer you odds of say 10.00 on Chelsea winning the league next year you think it's only a matter of opinion of whether that would be incorrect?

[Paul Ross]

Originally Posted by PAULM03

So were I to offer you odds of say 10.00 on Chelsea winning the league next year you think it's only a matter of opinion of whether that would be incorrect?

If you were a bookmaker, then no doubt it would be an error and be rectified.

If it was you personally, you may offer me 10.00 after 12 pints of stella, that wouldn't make it incorrect, it would just mean you were extremely pissed and I took advantage.

[PAULM03]

Originally Posted by Paul Ross

If you were a bookmaker, then no doubt it would be an error and be rectified.

If it was you personally, you may offer me 10.00 after 12 pints of stella, that wouldn't make it incorrect, it would just mean you were extremely pissed and I took advantage.

You haven't answered the question.

[Jonne]

I think both of you Paul's are right in a way :p

Paul Ross is right as two value punters very often may finds themselves betting on opposit bets on any given match, but in the end still both be in profit, as it is just a question of their rating of value/chance, not of a universal rating, which is impossible to find.

But PaulM is right, as people are obviously trying to get as close to the correct odds on every bet, and as long as they're closer to the correct odds they'll be in profit in the long run.

[cavelloman]

Originally Posted by PAULM03

So were I to offer you odds of say 10.00 on Chelsea winning the league next year you think it's only a matter of opinion of whether that would be incorrect?

I think the opinion would be 100% value. If you produce a continuous odds against % opinion function the 100% opinion of value would start reducing at say 5 and would be 0 at around 1.66.

[fenlandtiger]

Interesting thread.

My own view is that if you can consistently be more accurate than the market maker in your assessment of the likelihood of a game outcome, then that is to your advantage when it comes to placing a bet.

For example, if a stats model of football outcomes consistently predicts more of the variation in outcomes than pre-match odds, then that is a source of advantage when it comes to placing winning bets. Producing such a model is not easy though - and has been likened to a "seach for the Holy Grail" (Merlin). I don't think it's quite that hard, but the point is well made. You need to be pretty sure that any model you produce confers a real advantage, rather than just the appearance of an advantage. The crux here is that if you model is not as good as other market makers models, then your money is in peril as other market makers attack your odds (assuming that you are a big enough player in the market to be a worthwhile target).

I think this site is very good in the extent to which it gives good hints and tips on how to become profitable at punting, and the Systems and Strategy section is IMO very useful. People quite gladly proof systems, and these threads are well worth following.

Paul Ross made a very good point that it is not necessary to go to lengths of producing an accurate model to be a successful at betting (apologies if this is a misreprentation of the position). There are other ways to be profitable at betting (or indeed to lose), which involve less investment in time than trying to be more accurate at predicting the future than the market maker. The task then could be seen as finding a profitable niche, however that is achieved.

Another interesting point someone made was that the market makers set the initial odds, but these are then subject to market pressures. Often the initial odds that are set are quickly followed by a sharp adjustment, and then are subject to market forces which cause the odds to move up or down.

Someone else made the point (I think it was on this thread but might have been the thread on value) that the bookie does not really care what the odds are, or how accurate they might be. The bookie just needs to ensure that they keep a balanced book, in the sense that they get proportionate amounts of £££ from punters on the various outcomes. If the market maker has a balanced book, then by the time an event begins (or indeed by the time it finishes in the case of in-running events), then they will have achieved profit on that event, regardless of the outcome, with the profit proportional to the overround for that event, or the value that they have found in running. If, on the other hand, their book is not balanced, then their liabilities are directly analogous to those of a punter. There are quite a few independent market makers on the betting exchanges who make a living doing that, and there are many more who try and fail.

[traderpaul]

PAULM03,
Let's turn your question to Paul Ross around abit.
You wake up tomorrow morning, fire up your computer and check prices and see that every major bookmaker and Betfair is offering Chelsea @ 10-1 to win next year. Is that price correct or incorrect? Obviously there is something you don't know. To me it is reasonable that Paul Ross would think the same thing. What does PaulM03 know that I don't know? The price is not correct or incorrect but highlights a difference in opinion. Paul R can only assume that for some reason you find value in offering 10-1.

[PAULM03]

It would be interesting to see Joe Buchdahl's view on whether there is such a thing as a 'correct' price or not.

It's one of the basic premises of the 'hot favourite' system, as the average odds (i.e. across bookies) on an event decreases the amount returned per unit stake approaches 1. This implies that as the average odds decrease, the bookie is offering closer to 'true' odds.

PAULM03,
Let's turn your question to Paul Ross around abit.
You wake up tomorrow morning, fire up your computer and check prices and see that every major bookmaker and Betfair is offering Chelsea @ 10-1 to win next year. Is that price correct or incorrect? Obviously there is something you don't know. To me it is reasonable that Paul Ross would think the same thing. What does PaulM03 know that I don't know? The price is not correct or incorrect but highlights a difference in opinion. Paul R can only assume that for some reason you find value in offering 10-1.

I don't understand why simply not knowing the correct odds implies that correct odds don't exist.

[PAULM03]

Just having a read back through this thread in an idle 10 minutes and this little gem stuck out:

He studies numbers and how they move and he has been Sports-Punter.com Champion Tipster 2005 and 2006. He knows fcuk all about the horse he's backing, whether it's value or not, or whether it's on crutches.

I think Slapdash would disagree entirely with you there. Yes he might not know anything about the horse, but he does have a good idea of whether it is value or not. Value is value is value, the method of working it out may differ but if you're not finding it then you;re not making a profit. This is gambling 101 surely?
To use each way thieving as an example: There is a horse that is longer odds to place than it should be due to the presence of a strong favourite. That horse is then potentially value. The price it is, is longer than the price it should be. This too implies the existence of 'correct' odds.
Fair enough: between you, all the other punters and the bookies you might never work them out perfectly but that doesn't mean they don 't exist.

[Paul Ross]

Originally Posted by PAULM03

Just having a read back through this thread in an idle 10 minutes and this little gem stuck out:



I think Slapdash would disagree entirely with you there. Yes he might not know anything about the horse, but he does have a good idea of whether it is value or not. Value is value is value, the method of working it out may differ but if you're not finding it then you;re not making a profit. This is gambling 101 surely?
To use each way thieving as an example: There is a horse that is longer odds to place than it should be due to the presence of a strong favourite. That horse is then potentially value. The price it is, is longer than the price it should be. This too implies the existence of 'correct' odds.
Fair enough: between you, all the other punters and the bookies you might never work them out perfectly but that doesn't mean they don 't exist.

I meant value by studying the form, which he admits he doesn't do.

[PAULM03]

Originally Posted by Paul Ross

I meant value by studying the form, which he admits he doesn't do.

But value is value is value. Everyone's after the same value, it's just the methods that are different.

[muppet77]

seems as if i've sparked a good discussion.